this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
878 points (98.7% liked)

People Twitter

10175 readers
1736 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cybermass@lemmy.ca 107 points 17 hours ago (5 children)

When society and biology don't align, we get a birthrate crisis.

Who could've ever predicted making it very hard financially to be young person and making it practically impossible to buy a house and start a family would mean people stop having families /s

[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 50 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

My parents had children they couldn't actually afford, so they spent most of their time at work instead of raising us. Somehow, they expect me to be grateful to them for not being there and for bringing me into slave world.

I wish I hadn't been born.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 25 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Same, but I went another way with it. I decided to have kids and be a better parent than them. Since my brother didn't have kids I was able to break the cycle and put better people into the world than my parents did.

If we don't try to put better and smart people out there then we are destined to fulfill Mike Judges prophecy.

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 22 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

I love kids, being a parent was the only "dream" I was really sure of when I was younger. But I can barely afford to support myself, and as a woman in my upper-30s I can see the door of opportunity closing rapidly.

Thankfully, not all is lost. Working in education means I get to do my part to "put better and smart people out there" without having my own kids. It still hurts that I can't have the life I wanted, but at least I have the ability to positively influence future generations.

[–] 0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Adoption can still be an option, maybe?

[–] iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think that their problem is not being able to reproduce, it's that they don't have enough money to afford life if they have children.

[–] 5too@lemmy.world 3 points 9 hours ago

The "door of opportunity closing rapidly" in the upper thirties suggests she's worried she won't be able to afford kids before she'd have trouble with pregnancy.

Which, yeah, adoption or fostering could address part of that - but some people also want to experience the biological part of that process, and it sucks when they don't really get that choice

[–] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Idiocracy?
Edit: Idiocracy.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 11 points 16 hours ago

My parents had children they couldn’t actually afford, so they spent most of their time at work instead of raising us.

This is the reality for most people. I'm sorry they couldn't spend more time with you.

[–] cybermass@lemmy.ca 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah but imagine if we lived in a society where they could afford to have to and had time to raise you, that would've been pretty cool eh?

[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I prefer to focus on reality. Abuse has been normalized and things need to change. Others have it worse than I do. There are more victims every day.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Recently, when I went to the doctor, the nurse was going to take my blood pressure. I told the nurse it was going to be high, because the waiting room had a child having a meltdown, and a guy blasting what to me sounded like porn from his speaker.

The nurse zeroed in on the kid having a meltdown (not the kids fault at all, a five year old getting bloodwork done can be a nightmare, I know it) and this nurse started telling me anytime her kids acted up shed "pop them" right then and there and they behaved. Talked down on parents not doing this, and I just sat there in shock, and then defended the kid.

Another parent in my neighborhood said to me so casually, yeah I hit him (his special needs son) but I gave him a choice, the belt or my hand, he made his choice. DCF(CPS) is involved with the dude, and I am just shocked he's so open about beating his kid.

It's diabolical out there.

[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 5 points 12 hours ago

Yikes! It is frightening how shameless some people are; proud, even.

When I was young, I decided I probably shouldn't have kids. I figured that if my parents (who I loved and respected at the time) couldn't raise me without so much pain and fear, I'd probably do an even worse job.

When I told my abusive mother this as an adult, she told me I did not actually have that thought. How convenient for her.

We no longer speak. 🥲

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 3 points 10 hours ago

Birth rates are plummeting across most of the world, including more equal places. I believe some of the poorest countries continue to have higher birth rates.

That's not to say there's no economic component, but it's clearly more complicated than that.

[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 14 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 children)

What birth rate crisis? It’s only a crisis for capitalism, that wants to expand exponentially, which is unsustainable. For humanity, less people means less impact on the environment allowing the human race to live longer and healthier lives. It would benefit us all having less people on this planet.

[–] cybermass@lemmy.ca 9 points 16 hours ago

I mean I agree that we don't need to keep growing our population. What I'm referring to is the many people my age (Gen z) who cannot, and likely will not be able to raise families ever despite wanting to.

The rate of the demographic collapse in places like South Korea is also guaranteed to cause significant social issues, like too many old people, not enough people to take care of them sort of social issues.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 14 hours ago

Smart people stop having kids, let's make a movie about it!

(I know IQ isn't only genetic ofc.)

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 5 points 16 hours ago

Careful, someone might call you an ecofascist for acknowledging that obvious reality...

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 12 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

When society and biology don’t align, we get a birthrate crisis.

The birthrate "crisis" is also in large part due women's access to contraception and control over when they have children and how many.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 8 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

Even in Nordic gay space communist countries where all the needs of mothers are provided by the state, there is a birth rate crisis (met with immigration).

I think many of us uncomfortable with the dawning reality that achieving the replacement rate of humanity requires oppression of women. Bearing children is an enormous pain in the ass and without pressuring and grooming women into it, we don't get to the maintenance target of 2.1 babies per woman.

There are probably ways societies could THEORETICALLY adjust to make child-bearing more emotionally attractive without social coercion, but, fuck, man, society can't even maintain platonic friendships these days, how are we going to figure out how to have every woman average 2.1 babies?

[–] running_ragged@lemmy.world 16 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

People need to give up on the idea that the replacement rate needs to be met all the time, everywhere.

It is ok, and natural for populations to decrease intermittently.

We have too many people. We can’t find affordable homes for the people we do have. We can’t meet the energy demands of the people today, without borrowing from the well-being of our planet’s future.

People are correctly looking around at the world and deciding they don’t need to be bringing more people into this world as it currently stands.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Our system is simply not set up for declining populations.

I'd like to think the declining birth rates are a natural correction, and that with fewer people, real estate will come down, and tuitition will drop, etc., but I think the problem isn't scare resources, it's wealth inequality.

And if we decided to move back into liveable cities, we'd have plenty of resources.

[–] running_ragged@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Our system is not set up for anything other than to make the richest people richer, by exploiting the labour of the rest of the people.

Our real system, the closed system known as planet Earth is not set up for endless growth of a human economy. All populations go through growth and crash cycles. The longer we push off the decline, the harder the crash will be.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 9 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

how are we going to figure out how to have every woman average 2.1 babies?

Taking away abortion rights and forcing women out of education and careers to stay home.

Well, that's how they're trying to do it in the US right now.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 7 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Yup. That's exactly the play.

I was hoping for a more liberal-minded solution, but it probably requires radically smaller communal living, more intergenerational. Even if everything's paid for, having two kids is a real sacrifice, but triply so if you're living alone and your grandparents are dead and your parents live an hour away.

Also check out Britt Hartley's video on Christian men. Religion is traditionally the place for women to have babies and be communal and shit but Christianity is so besotted with female oppression that the light is turning on in the minds of Christian women: Christian men are NOT safe partners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTCMbGBnDh8

And you're absolutely right. The terrifying thing is that toopush women into having babies again--at least by force--you have to strip away 100 years of rights and close every avenue and loophole out to an independent life and an independent mind. Just banning abortion is not enough. You have to close schools, forbid employment, ban loans, etc.

Women, especially you majority-Trump-voting white women: take note.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 6 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

It gets really frustrating seeing the conversations around falling birthrates. Everyone only wants to talk about the economy and social safety nets while ignoring the real driving cause - women's rights.

This is a manufactured crisis in order to control women.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago

I think the crisis is as real as any crisis we're currently ignoring. The left can use it to argue for their policies, and the right can use it to argue for theirs. Neither side is willing to let it go as long as it has political utility.

[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

People have more babies when their economic needs are met.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, but not enough. Would it be the worst thing in the world if people could continue the human race without working 120 hours a week? Nope! But it might not be enough to get 2.1.

[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

It might not, but it might, but it also doesn't matter because the birth rate is only important to capitalism

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

And everyone that lives under capitalism?

[–] Banana@sh.itjust.works 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

It's only a problem in the first place because of the unrealistic expectations capitalists have regarding economic growth.

The more sparse the labour force, the more expensive labour will be.

Therefore, could it not be beneficial for existing members of the labour force if the labour supply were to shrink? Obviously there are other moving parts like some jobs being replaced by LLMs (which are proving to be just as if not more expensive anyway).

My point is that the birth rate isn't actually that important to the average person (ie. Employees, not employers), capitalists would really like us to believe it is, though.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Why would it matter to anyone that doesn't live under capitalism?

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Oh, well, in that case, have at it. I just don't know anyone that doesn't personally.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago

Women having fewer babies isn't an issue in my opinion, that's all

[–] cybermass@lemmy.ca 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

When I refer to the crisis the real crisis part of the crisis is not people who don't want kids not having them, it's people who DO want kids not having them.

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Our governments should absolutely do more to support families.

I don’t think the birth rate is ever going to go back to earlier rates because when given the choice, women have less children than before and they give birth to their first children later in life. Women should maintain access to these rights over their own bodies and lives.

Support families and women because it’s the right thing to do, not because it’ll make women have more babies.

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@piefed.world 9 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah, a society that doesn't take into account biology can't possibly last. The hard discussion is that a lot of it is because we, as a modern society, expect certain things now: access to contraception is good, women having equal ability to enter college and employment is good.

But it's unavoidable that when an increasingly large share of the population are getting established in their careers in their late 20s or early 30s, the window of time to date, marry, and start a family is so much shorter than it used to be. Add in increased housing and living costs, and the window gets even smaller. Also, heaven forbid any step in the process takes longer than planned...

[–] snooggums@piefed.world 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, a society that doesn’t take into account biology can’t possibly last.

It is also important to take it into account in a positive way. In the 'past' women were disqualified for certain jobs because they might get pregnant and that would require giving them leave and that would cost the capitalist machine profits!

[–] The_Picard_Maneuver@piefed.world 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Sometimes I wonder if women's lib was only successful because it happened to align with the capitalist desire to double the labor pool. Is that too cynical? Maybe we still would've gotten there otherwise.

[–] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It's irritating that you used to be able to run a 2.4 children household on a male breadwinner, and now two incomes is often not enough. We've normalised everyone working and noone able to focus on home and the family.

I guess the idea of the "stay at home dad" didn't take off enough to normalise a single worker after women were able to leave the house.

(I'm aware of the broad strokes hetronormative language here, but it's relevant)

[–] velma@sh.itjust.works 5 points 14 hours ago

I guess the idea of the “stay at home dad” didn’t take off enough to normalise a single worker after women were able to leave the house.

Part of that is women's wages didn't rise to match men's wages.